HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4200
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4200)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/4/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Preliminary Cost Estimates for Grade Separation and
Trenching Studies
Title: Rail Committee Recommendation on the Preliminary Cost Estimates for
Grade Separation and Trenching Studies
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council consider the alternatives outlined in the report and direct
the City Manager to enter into a contract with Hatch Mott McDonald (HMM) to perform “Phase
1” of the additional grade separation design services. The Rail Committee recommended on a
3-1 vote (Councilmember Klein dissenting) that Council authorize HMM to perform the “Phase
I” grade separation design services. The Committee also directed staff, working with HMM, to
recommend one roadway submersion scenario and one trenching scenario for Council for
consideration.
Purpose
HMM, an engineering firm, submitted a proposal to the City to study conceptual grade
separation alternatives. This study would assist the City in understanding cost of construction
(by order of magnitude) for grade separation and trenching alternatives. This understanding
would help the City of Palo Alto facilitate community dialogue and form a position on grade
separations, which may help obtain funding. This study is not intended to determine an
ultimate configuration, nor is it to make a recommendation on a particular option; it is only
intended to present information on various options.
Summary and Discussion
At the April 25, 2013 Rail Committee meeting staff presented a fee proposal from Hatch Mott
McDonald (HMM) that outlined the costs associated with completing a “10% design” on two
City of Palo Alto Page 2
grade separation alternatives. The two grade separation alternatives were: 1) submerging or
elevating the roadway at Palo Alto’s four at-grade crossings; and 2) depressing the Caltrain
corridor in an extended trench from the south end of the downtown Palo Alto Caltrain station
to approximately San Antonio Road. However, at a cost of $2,614,745 to complete the 10%
design, the Rail Committee directed HMM to revise the proposal. This revised proposal would
estimate the cost to develop conceptual grade separation alternatives instead of doing a 10%
design.
At the May 23, 2013 Rail Committee meeting staff presented an updated HMM fee proposal to
develop conceptual grade separation alternatives for the same two scenarios mentioned above.
At that meeting the Rail Committee deferred making a recommendation on the proposed HMM
study because the Caltrain Grade Crossing & Traffic Analysis Final Report had not been
released. The Rail Committee was interested in the results of that report prior to making a
recommendation on the HMM study.
Ultimately, the Caltrain Grade Crossing & Traffic Analysis Final Report was released and does
not contain definitive conclusions on where and when future grade separations will be
required. Therefore, on August 22, 2013, staff recommended that the Rail Committee make a
recommendation to Council regarding whether HMM should move forward with additional
grade separation design services.
At the August 22nd meeting, the Rail Committee was presented with different scenarios for
completing this study. Below are possible grade separation (submerged roadway) and
trenching configurations that were presented to the Rail Committee. HMM has indicated that
any direction the City can give them prior to undertaking the study is beneficial, with the
understanding that additional work outside of the proposed scope of study will entail additional
costs. Possible scenarios that were discussed are:
Trenching the corridor from Embarcadero to approximately San Antonio (with or without
analysis of the impacts of such on the Oregon undercrossing, creeks, and/or the
California Avenue station)
Submerging the roadway at the following four grade crossings: 1) Alma; 2) Churchill;
3) Meadow; and 4) Charleston
Submerging the roadway at the following three grade crossings: 1) Churchill; 2) Meadow;
and 3) Charleston, while leaving Alma at-grade
Submerging the roadway at Churchill and trenching the corridor from Oregon to
approximately San Antonio (with or without analysis of the impacts of such on creeks),
while leaving Alma at-grade
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Submerging the roadway at Churchill and trenching the corridor only enough to
underpass the Meadow and Charleston crossings (with or without analysis of the
impacts of such on creeks), while leaving Alma at-grade
This study would deliver a “relative concept cost estimate for each alternative” and would cost
$127,550. The most important piece of information obtained through this analysis would be a
clear understanding of the differences in cost and construction between submerging the
roadway and a trench. Further, staff requested that HMM breakdown the $127,550 study into
two phases. The benefit of a phased approach is that it allows the Council to decide whether to
move forward with a second phase after hearing the results of the first phase.
The Phase I analysis would: (1) evaluate the selected alternatives, (2) identify potential project
impacts for each alternative, and (3) provide concept level cost estimates for alternative
comparison purposes. Phase I would cost approximately $59,790. The Phase II analysis would
(1) develop the selected alternatives to a final concept level, (2) produce concept design
exhibits, (3) provide final order of magnitude project costs for evaluation purposes, and (4)
generate a final feasibility study. Phase II would cost approximately $67,760.
Currently, $64,688 is remaining in a contract with HMM for on-call engineering design.
Therefore, Phase I could be completed with existing funds. The City Council would have to
appropriate an additional $62,862 for Phase II of this work. Phase 2 would be brought forward
to the Rail Committee and Council for consideration at a later date.
The Rail Committee recommended on a 3-1 vote (Councilmember Klein dissenting) that Council
authorize HMM to perform the “Phase I” grade separation design services. The Committee
also directed staff, working with HMM, to recommend one roadway submersion scenario and
one trenching scenario for Council for consideration.
After discussing the various options with HMM, staff recommends the following scenarios be
studied: *1) submerging the roadway at Churchill, Meadow, and Charleston, while leaving Alma
at-grade, and 2) trenching the corridor from San Antonio under Adobe creek, Charleston,
Meadow, and Barron creek before coming back to the surface just prior to Matadero creek. This
study would include preliminary analysis of the impacts this alignment would have on the
creeks.
Attached is the proposal from HMM that outlines their approach to development of the
conceptual grade separation alternatives (Attachment A). The proposal outlines the anticipated
scope of services, study approach, deliverables, fee proposal, and contractual framework to be
City of Palo Alto Page 4
expected if the City decides to approve this study.
*Please note that elevating the roadway could be studied at any location where the roadway is
submerged but elevating the roadway tends to have a larger footprint than submerging the
roadway and significant visual impacts.
Previous Studies
In June 2011 HMM produced a memorandum for the City of Palo Alto that provided technical
information related to a two-track underground rail corridor through the City. That
memorandum did not study a specific construction scenario but did provide a “per linear foot”
cost for four trenching alternatives (shallow open trench, shallow covered trench, deep open
trench, and deep covered trench). The cost per linear foot was calculated based on the CHSRA
Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Appendix L (Cost Estimates) and accounted for structure
costs, tracks, rail systems, mechanical/electrical/plumbing construction, and general utility
relocation. It did not account for right-of-way costs and additional auxiliary costs that may be
necessary.
The primary difference between the trenching estimate that was generated in the 2011 memo
and this study is that the previous estimate was primarily based on CHSRA numbers. This was
done in order to keep the estimate consistent with all of the CHSRA’s proposed alternatives.
The proposed study would use current and local construction cost information. HMM will
generate this estimate using information they’ve obtained from the BART to San Jose extension
project and other similar projects they are working on. The recent and local data is more
relevant for Peninsula/South Bay purposes, compared to the CHSRA information which was
primarily based on statewide averages. Furthermore, HMM would be using numbers that are
more applicable to this specific trenching proposal in terms of utilities, ROW impacts, staging,
and traffic signals (especially for Phase II of the study) rather than wholesale allowance
numbers.
Attachments:
A: HMM Design Fee Proposal for the City of Palo Alto Rail Analysis Study_10-28-2013
(PDF)
04-25-13 Rail Committee Excerpt Minutes (DOC)
05-23-13 Rail Committee Excerpt Minutes (DOC)
08-22-13 Rail Committee Excerpt Minutes (DOC)
City of Palo Alto
Rail Analysis Study – Design Fee Proposal
City of Palo Alto
Rail Analysis Study – Scope of Services & Fee Proposal
Table of Contents
1.0 Anticipated Scope of Services ............................................................................................ 1
2.0 Study Approach .................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Study Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Study Team ......................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Study Approach ................................................................................................................... 6
3.0 Deliverables ........................................................................................................................ 7
4.0 Fee Proposal ...................................................................................................................... 7
5.0 Contractual Framework ..................................................................................................... 9
Appendix A – Fee Proposal Breakdown
Appendix B – HMM Standard Terms & Conditions
City of Palo Alto
Rail Analysis Study – Scope of Services & Fee Proposal
1
1.0 Anticipated Scope of Services
The City of Palo Alto (City) has requested that Hatch Mott MacDonald (HMM) provide a scope and fee
estimate to provide engineering services to develop conceptual grade separation alternatives between
vehicular traffic and a fully electrified Caltrain Service at four locations within the limits of the City.
Services to be provided will include the following:
Phase 1:
· Alternative evaluation and draft concept exhibits to identify potential project impacts to -
roadways, right of way, traffic, and the railway corridor.
· Draft concept level cost estimates for alternative comparison purposes.
· Attend one City Council Rail Committee meeting.
Phase 2:
· Development of selected alternatives to a final concept level.
· Final concept design exhibits including impacts to roadways, right of way, traffic, major utilities,
railway corridor, and from construction staging.
· Final order of magnitude project costs for evaluation purposes.
· Final feasibility study report
· Attend a total of two public meetings (one City Council Rail Committee meetings and one City
Council Meeting) to present the alternatives and obtain input.
This scope and fee estimate is provided for conceptual grade separation alternatives described below:
Alternative 1: Construction of roadway underpasses at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston
Road, while leaving the railway corridor and Alma Street at-grade.
Alternative 2: Construction of a railway corridor trench from San Antonio Road under Adobe creek,
Charleston Road, Meadow Drive, and Barron Creek, returning to an at-grade railway corridor prior to
Matadero Creek, including preliminary analysis of the impacts this alignment would have on the creeks.
2.0 Study Approach
2.1 Assumptions
The predicted level of effort associated with the study and the corresponding fee proposal are based
upon a number of primary assumptions as identified below.
· Caltrain service will be electrified prior to performing the grade separation. Caltrain will remain
operational throughout the duration of the construction
City of Palo Alto
Rail Analysis Study – Scope of Services & Fee Proposal
2
· Limited freight service will continue to operate on the Caltrain corridor.
· Alma Street may be used in part for the construction of shoo-fly tracks.
· The following documents will be used as the basis of the study:
o Rail design will be based upon published Caltrain Design Criteria and Standards:
http://www.caltrain.com/about/doingbusiness/engineering/engineeringstandards.html
o The Caltrain Standards will be supplemented by the January 2007 Draft Criteria Manual
Electrification Program
o Overhead contact system configuration will be per Caltrain General Arrangements:
http://www.caltrain.com/about/doingbusiness/engineering/Electrification/OCS_General_Ar
rangement.html
o Criteria for streets and roadways will be based upon City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, City
Standards, planning requirements and Caltrans standards:
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=
templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1834&TargetID=145
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/techpubs/
o California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Orders:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/documents/go.htm
· Base mapping, right of way boundaries and existing utilities mapping information will be made
available by the City.
· Existing geotechnical data and engineering recommendations reports for existing grade
separation projects, and other relevant building, utility, other projects or study information
adjacent to the existing Caltrain alignment will be made available by the City.
· Requirements for maintenance of traffic and ultimate traffic lane configurations will be as
provided by or as agreed with the City.
· Property valuations for identified right of way takes or temporary impacts for the various
options will be provided by the City.
· Coordination with rail regulatory agencies such as, but not limited to —California Public Utilities
Commission, The Federal Railroad Administration, and the Federal Transit Agency, is not
necessary at this conceptual stage.
· Public Meetings would be facilitated by the City and attended by the PM and key project staff.
City of Palo Alto
Rail Analysis Study – Scope of Services & Fee Proposal
3
2.2 Study Team & Scope
The study scope of services requires input from a multidisciplinary design team involving civil/rail,
structural, and estimating services. The proposed level of effort for project management and each of the
engineering disciplines is described below.
Project Manger
HMM will provide a project manager (PM) to oversee and coordinate the study effort. The PM will be
experienced in planning, design and construction of rail and civil infrastructure and will oversee and
direct the work of the study. The PM will have overall responsibility for HMM’s performance relative to
schedule, budget, and quality of the deliverable products. The PM will be the principal point of contact
between the City and HMM, and will attend meetings with the City and its Rail Committee.
Engineering Staff
Each discipline engineer will be responsible for the development of aspects of deliverables relative to
their discipline – be it sections of study reports, development of exhibits, or provision of take-off
quantities in support of cost estimating.
Civil/Rail Engineer
The civil/rail engineer will be responsible for identifying impacts to rail operations and capacity for each
of the alternatives and for establishing concept level temporary requirements involving single tracking
and/or shoo-fly construction, and permanent requirements for the rail configuration for each of the
alternatives.
The civil engineer will be responsible for establishing the extent of any impacts associated with right of
way, utilities, creeks and streets and roadways for each of the alternatives. The civil engineer will
develop conceptual level construction sequencing for options involving grade separations and, in
conjunction with the structural engineer, will develop a series of sketches which support the feasibility
of the construction sequence.
Structural Engineer
The Structural Engineer will develop structural conceptual level configurations for each of the grade
separation alternatives for both temporary and permanent construction.
Cost Estimator
The cost estimator will be responsible for the preparation of the cost estimate, including the estimate
basis, assumptions, and appropriate levels of contingency and accuracy. The estimator will work with
the engineers to prepare appropriate costs for significant items based upon ongoing or recently bid
City of Palo Alto
Rail Analysis Study – Scope of Services & Fee Proposal
4
similar work. The cost estimates for each alternative will be used for relative alternative comparison
only. The cost estimates for each of the options will form an Appendix to the study report.
Estimating support will be required to identify appropriate pricing for any necessary right of way
acquisition for temporary or permanent purposes.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
In keeping with HMMs commitment to Quality HMM deliverables will be peer reviewed by Senior
Personnel for technical accuracy and to ensure compliance with quality HMM’s Integrated Management
Systems.
2.3 Study Approach
Our approach to the delivery of the study upon Notice to Proceed is as follows:
Phase 1:
· Meet with City staff to gather existing available information, discuss apparent constraints, and
review initial concepts and preferred solutions.
· Prepare initial draft of alternative concepts with ‘felt pen’ type Exhibits.
· Prepare draft concept level cost estimates for alternative comparison purposes.
· Meet with City Council Rail Committee and City staff to agree upon which alternatives are to be
developed in study and to what level they will be developed.
Phase 2:
· Prepare concept level exhibits for each developed alternative and cost estimates.
· Meet with City Council Rail Committee and City staff to discuss initial findings, concepts, and
gather input.
· Prepare Final Concept Exhibits.
· Meet with City Council Rail Committee and City staff to finalize study and design exhibits.
· Update Final Concept Exhibits Draft Feasibility Study.
· Attend City Council presentation to provide status and gather input.
· Compile Concept Exhibits and estimates; prepare Final Feasibility Study with summary text
documenting the process, and forward final deliverables to City.
The Feasibility Study Submittal will include a concept design report summarizing the work of the study,
exhibits, and relative concept cost estimate for each developed alternative. Deliverables will be provided
in native and pdf electronic formats.
City of Palo Alto
Rail Analysis Study – Scope of Services & Fee Proposal
5
3.0 Deliverables
The following deliverables will be provided in support of each phase of the study:
Phase 1:
· Monthly progress reports, submitted with invoices
· Draft Concept Exhibits
· Draft Concept Cost Estimates
The anticipated project duration from Notice to Proceed for Phase 1 through delivery of the Draft
Concept Exhibits and Cost Estimates is approximately 2 1/2 months.
Phase 2:
· Final Concept Exhibits
· Final Concept Level Cost Estimates
· Final Feasibility Study Report
The anticipated project duration from Notice to Proceed for Phase 2 through delivery of the Final
Concept Study and Exhibits is approximately 2 1/2 months.
4.0 Fee Proposal
The breakdowns of proposed hours by staff, labor rates, overhead rate, proposed fee and estimated
direct costs for each phase of work are included as Appendix A. Costs are based upon 2013 labor rates.
Assumptions related to the fee proposal are as follows:
· Work will be performed in two phases. Work for each phase will commence upon receipt of a
Notice to Precede from the City for each phase.
· Fee proposal is typically based upon an assumed level of participation for each of the identified
disciplines over the expected duration of the study as follows:
· Sufficient data exists or will be provided by the City of Palo Alto for aerial
topography/background information, right of way mapping and utility mapping to prepare
exhibits required for three meetings and concept designs.
· Final Concept Exhibits for each alternative are estimated as follows:
o One plan exhibit per location comprised of: existing conditions, proposed layout, right of
way boundaries and potential right of way impacts, major utility impacts, and
traffic/pedestrian circulation.
City of Palo Alto
Rail Analysis Study – Scope of Services & Fee Proposal
6
o One profile/section exhibit comprised of: conceptual profile of both rail line and street
crossing, conceptual typical section of both rail line and street crossing with conceptual
retaining wall/structure approach.
o One plan exhibit per location comprised of: conceptual staging and construction
sequencing plan for both rail line and street crossing.
5.0 Contractual Framework
HMM is prepared to undertake the assignment on either a time and materials or lump sum basis at the
discretion of the City. A copy of our standard terms and conditions are included as Appendix B for City
review and use. We are prepared to execute our standard agreement upon receipt of notice of City
Approval of our proposed scope of services and budget.
City of Palo Alto
Rail Analysis Study – Scope of Services & Fee Proposal
Appendix A - Fee Proposal Breakdown
Principal-in-
Charge
Project
Manager
Civil/Rail
Engineer Civil Engineer Structural
Engineering
Cost
Estimator QA
300.00$ 255.00$ 165.00$ 120.00$ 120.00$ $200.00 255.00$
1 Project Management 10 10 20
2 1 Meeting 2 2 16 20
3 Draft Concept Exhibits 8 24 80 120 40 40 8 320
Hours 20 36 80 136 40 40 8 360
Sub-total Labor 6,000.00$ 9,180.00$ 13,200.00$ 16,320.00$ 4,800.00$ 8,000.00$ 2,040.00$ 59,540.00$
Other Direct Costs: Reproduction, travel to meetings etc. 250.00$
59,790.00$
1 Project Management 10 10 20
2 2 Meetings 4 4 24 32
3 Final Concept Exhibits 8 16 40 60 20 4 148
4 Final Feasibility Study Report 16 20 40 80 20 12 188
Hours 38 50 80 164 20 20 16 388
Sub-total Labor 11,400.00$ 12,750.00$ 13,200.00$ 19,680.00$ 2,400.00$ 4,000.00$ 4,080.00$ 67,510.00$
Other Direct Costs: Reproduction, travel to meetings etc. 250.00$
67,760.00$
500.00$
127,550.00$
Task Totals
Staff Member & Basic Hourly Rate
City of Palo Alto
Rail Analysis Study – Design Fee Proposal
Ph
a
s
e
1
Ph
a
s
e
2
Phase 1 Total
Phase 2 Total
ODC Total
Study Total
City of Palo Alto
Rail Analysis Study – Scope of Services & Fee Proposal
Appendix B – HMM Standard Terms and Conditions
072412DRH
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Article 1 - Implementation of the Purchase Order: ____________________(“HMM”) hereby engages ___________ (“Consultant”) and
Consultant agrees, in accordance with the terms of this Purchase Order including the specifications, if any, to perform professional consulting
services (“Services”) as specified herein and to same to completion in accordance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations. Upon the
agreement of both parties , HMM and Consultant may negotiate and enter into a Professional Engineering Services Agreement if the level of
Services or price increases beyond the scope of this Purchase Order. The Agreement shall include this Purchase Order. Article 2 - Standard of Care Consultant shall perform its Services in accordance with that same standard of care practiced by reasonable and prudent professional engineers providing the same or similar services in the same geographic locality. Consultant does not guarantee the accuracy of any estimates of costs of construction that may be requested and shall not be responsible for any costs incurred exceeding any such estimates. Consultant shall not be responsible for site safety. Article 3 - Payment 3.1 Consultant may invoice HMM in accordance with the Schedule of Rates, if any, attached. HMM shall pay Consultant for each invoice within the time specified therein, or if no time is specified, within thirty (30) days of the date of the invoice. 3.2 If any item or part of an item of an invoice of Consultant is disputed or subject to question by HMM, the payment by HMM of that part of the invoice which is not contested shall be withheld on those grounds. The undisputed amounts shall be paid in accordance with this Purchase Order. Article 4 - Reports and Deliverables 4.1 Upon receipt of final payment any reports or deliverables will become the property of HMM whether the Project is to be proceeded with or not. The copyright of the Reports shall be and remain with Consultant. Consultant hereby grants a non-exclusive assignable license under such copyrights to HMM to construct the Project. 4.2 Reports, deliverables, or memoranda issued to HMM or otherwise resulting from any assignment hereunder are not to be used in whole or in part outside of HMM’s organization or provided to third parties (including but not limited to being used or provided in connection with any sale or offering for sale of securities, including without limitation stock, bonds, notes or any other instruments or transactions which call for invest-ments, loans or other transfers of money) without the prior written approval of Consultant.. Article 5 - Extra Services HMM shall have the right to request Consultant to perform services in connection with the Project that are in addition to the Services (“Extra Services”) and Consultant may, subject to agreement on the payment for such Extra Services, agree to perform such Extra Services, such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld. Consultant shall be paid by HMM for the performance of Extra Services on the same basis and at the same times as Consultant is paid for the Services unless the basis of payment for the Services is a fixed fee in which case the parties shall agree to an equitable adjustment on the fixed fee. Article 6 - Confidential Information 6.1 Consultant shall not disclose any confidential information of HMM relating to the Project communicated to or acquired by Consultant in the course of carrying out the Services which if known by others would have a material and adverse affect on the business and operations of HMM. Consultant shall use such confidential information only for purposes that relate to the performance of the Services and not for any other purpose without the consent of HMM. Similarly, HMM shall not disclose any confidential information of Consultant communicated to or acquired by HMM except as may be required by others who are performing work or services in connection with the Project and who have entered into a confidentiality agreement satisfactory to Consultant. 6.2 Confidential information shall not include any information which (a)w as at the time of disclosure or thereafter became part of the public domain through no act or omission of Consultant or HMM; or (b) became available to Consultant or HMM from a third party who did not acquire such confidential information under an obligation of confidentiality either directly or indirectly from Consultant or HMM; or (c) was known to Consultant at the time of disclosure thereof by HMM and vice versa; or (d) was required to be disclosed by law. Article 7 - Insurance Consultant shall obtain and maintain the following types and amounts of insurance coverage: workers compensation-statutory; commercial general liability $1million per occurrence/aggregate; automobile liability $1 million per occurrence/aggregate; professional errors and omissions $1 million per claim/aggregate on a claims made basis. Article 8 - Limitation of Liability and Waiver of Damages Notwithstanding anything else to the contrary herein, the liability of either party to the other under this Agreement (whether by reason of breach of contract, tort or otherwise, including under any applicable indemnification provisions) shall be limited to the greater of: (a) the amount of service fees paid to Consultant under this Agreement; or (b) the amount of professional liability insurance posted by Consultant at the time of execution of this Agreement. In addition, HMM and Consultant hereby waive their respective rights to any and all claims against each other for special, indirect or consequential damages of any nature whatsoever, arising out of or in any way related to the services to be performed under this Agreement. Article 9 – Indemnifications Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless HMM against all claims, demands, suits, judgments, liabilities, costs and reasonable attorney fees, arising out of the errors, omissions or negligent acts, breach of contract or wrongful misconduct of the Consultant. This obligation shall include, without limitation, all claims and liens by any and all of Consultant’s contractors, agents and employees. In addition, the Consultant shall pay any and all attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs incurred by HMM which relate to the enforcement of the indemnity conditions and obligations of the Consultant, including without limitation the additional insured protection and other insurance obligations of Consultant, under the Agreement Article 10 - Termination 10.1 HMM may, at its option, terminate this Agreement upon written notice in the event the Consultant becomes insolvent, or a receiver is appointed on account of its insolvency or it enters into an arrangement for the benefit of its creditors. 10.2 HMM shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement on 15 days written notice Consultant in the event the Consultant is in material default of its obligations pursuant to this Agreement and such default have not been cured within 15 days following receipt of written notice of such default. Article 11 - Force Majeure If either party is impacted in whole or in part by any event of force majeure including without limitation any act of God, war, riot, labor dispute, change in law, terrorism, civil commotion or unrest, flood, strike, fire, or any cause beyond the control of such party (except for financial inability), then such Party so impacted shall be relieved of its obligations herein. Any party so impacted in whole or in part by force majeure shall promptly give the other party notice of the force majeure event including reasonably full particulars in respect thereof. Any
072412DRH
party so impacted shall also be entitled to an equitable adjustment of the Agreement, which may include an increase in price, extension of time or other equitable relief as in good faith is reasonable, appropriate and supportable. Article 12 – Notice Any notice, request, order, statement or other communication required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing and may be given by delivery to an officer of the other party or by mailing the same by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the other party, to the addresses shown on the last page of this Purchase Order. Notice given by facsimile transmission or telex shall be deemed to have been given on the day of transmittal, if transmitted during normal business hours, or on the next business day if transmitted outside of normal business hours. Notice given by mail shall be deemed to have been given on the fifth business day after mailing. Article 13 - General 13.1 This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, understandings or agreements either written or oral made or exchanged between the parties prior to the execution of this Agreement. 13.2 Consultant may not assign this Agreement except with the consent of HMM, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.. 13.3 This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of New Jersey. Before submitting a dispute to the courts, the parties agree to submit such dispute to senior management to attempt to resolve the dispute. 13.4 Nothing in this Agreement shall create or shall be construed so as to create the relationship of principal and agent between HMM and Consultant, and for all purposes Consultant shall be an independent contractor in performing the Services. 13.5 No waiver by either party hereto of any breach of any of the covenants herein contained shall take effect or be binding upon that party unless the same be expressed in writing and any waiver so given shall extend only to the particular breach so waived and shall not limit or affect any rights with respect to any other future breach. 13.6 The invalidity of any provision or unenforceability thereof shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provisions hereof. 13.7 The provisions of Articles 1, 2, 3, 6 (Article 6 for a period of Five (5) years), 8 and 12 shall survive the suspension or termination of this Agreement.
NAME OF CONSULTANT HATCH MOTT MACDONALD, LLC
By:_________________________________________ By:_______________________________________
____________________________________________
Print or Type Name
____________________________________________
Title
Dated:_______________________________________ Dated:____________________________________
CITY COUNCIL RAIL COMMITTEE
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 1 of 4
Special Meeting
Thursday, April 25, 2013
5. Discussion of the Preliminary Cost Estimates for Grade Separation and
Trenching Studies
Richard Hackmann, Management Specialist, recalled at the prior Rail
Committee (Committee) meeting Staff was directed to follow up with Hatch
Mott MacDonald regarding the cost to design and construct either a trench
for the railroad or submerged roadway grade separations. The cost for a 10
percent design for the four grade separations would be approximately $1
million. The cost for a 10 percent design for trenching in Palo Alto would be
approximately $1.5 million. However, Hatch Mott MacDonald could use
industry standards and generic assumptions to provide a fairly accurate cost
range for either of those scenarios. Those numbers would not be as detailed
or as accurate as the 10 percent design, and there would be ambiguity
related to the cost for utility relocation and property acquisition. Staff
requested direction regarding the nexus between cost and accuracy for one
of these studies and which questions were more important to have
answered.
Chair Shepherd inquired if a cost savings would result from blending the two
bids.
Chris Metzger, Professional Engineer from Hatch Mott MacDonald, reported
field investigation was premature at the current time. They could locate
enough existing data to help the Committee make decisions. They could
study both options, and prepare comparisons and contrasts and impact
analyses on both ideas.
Council Member Burt wanted to ensure the Committee was not considering a
design study. One of the key elements was property acquisition with respect
to at-grade crossings versus submerged or partially submerged tracks. He
hoped the study could be performed on a preliminary basis without having
site visits. He suggested the study consider the range of costs and impacts
of the alternatives.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 2 of 4
City Council Rail Committee Special Meeting
Excerpt Minutes 4/25/13
Mr. Metzger stated ample information was available to use for this type of
study. From available information, they could provide information regarding
ultimate configurations that would work in the limits of those configurations
and the range of impacts from the ultimate configuration. Another element
could be the impacts during construction. Lastly, they could provide some
cost elements. Utilities would be a large component, and they could provide
impacts and costs for utility work. They could perform that work to a level
that would allow the Committee to make decisions or at least discuss the
alternatives.
Council Member Klein inquired about the numbers in the 2011 study.
Mr. Hackmann recalled the range of $25,000-$30,000 per linear foot was the
cost of constructing a two-track trench only. That did not include any
auxiliary costs. Constructing 4 miles or approximately 21,000 feet of trench
would total in the range of $500-$650 million.
Council Member Klein asked why Mr. Hackmann used 4 miles.
Mr. Hackmann explained 4 miles was the approximate length of the corridor
in Palo Alto.
Council Member Klein reiterated a cost of $500-$600 million.
Mr. Hackmann understood the 2011 study did not include auxiliary costs for
shoe fly tracks or temporary roadway constructions.
Mr. Metzger reported the 2011 study focused on changes from a base
condition and the additional costs. The study the Committee was interested
in was substantially different, because it would consider total project costs.
Council Member Burt inquired whether the 2011 study included rough
estimates of elevated or submerged grade separations.
Mr. Hackmann stated the study did not look at grade separations.
Chair Shepherd liked Mr. Metzger's comments regarding how to limit the
study. It was important for the community to understand the magnitude of
this project. He inquired about the possible cost of a high level preliminary
analysis.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 3 of 4
City Council Rail Committee Special Meeting
Excerpt Minutes 4/25/13
Mr. Metzger indicated a feasibility study would cost in the range of
$100,000. He wanted to know the Committee's major concerns in order to
focus on them. The cost also would depend on the interaction level with the
community itself.
Chair Shepherd asked if interaction meant community meetings and citizen
outreach.
Mr. Metzger answered yes. With a larger group, he usually had to present
the information in multiple formats.
Chair Shepherd was interested in property acquisitions and construction
phase. She wanted to understand the reasons why an option was not
feasible.
Mr. Metzger stated the construction methodology would add greatly to the
project cost.
Chair Shepherd asked if Hatch Mott MacDonald was involved in the design of
the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Berryessa trenching project.
Mr. Metzger was the engineering manager for the project over the prior
three years. On that project, there were hundreds of different property
acquisitions. The study could review the properties that would be impacted.
Chair Shepherd inquired about cost overruns for the Berryessa project.
Mr. Metzger reported costs were trending well with no major issues.
Chair Shepherd indicated the next step was for Hatch Mott MacDonald to
work with Staff to refine the proposal after learning the Committee's
interests.
Mr. Metzger assumed cost was a material reason for eliminating an
alternative. Impacts could also be a material reason.
Chair Shepherd wanted to understand the options, and assumed trenching
and tunneling were probably the most expensive form of reconfiguring the
railway. A range of costs for the construction phase and the build phase
were also needed.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 4 of 4
City Council Rail Committee Special Meeting
Excerpt Minutes 4/25/13
Mr. Metzger reported the less expensive alternative was always to move the
roadway. Grade separations were expected to be the lower cost, but they
were not necessarily the best in terms of final construction costs. There
could be many substantial benefits from having a trench. With this study,
the Committee could use costs of grade separations and trenching to
extrapolate the costs of a tunnel.
Council Member Burt left the meeting at 10:20 A.M. and returned at 10:25
A.M.
Chair Shepherd announced the meeting was back in session.
Mr. Hackmann inquired whether Mr. Metzger needed additional information
from the Committee to draft a fee proposal for a feasibility study.
Mr. Metzger inquired whether a roadway closure should be considered when
looking at constructability.
Council Member Burt referenced the Guiding Principles regarding no
permanent roadway closure; however he would like recommendations on
whether temporary closures were necessary.
Chair Shepherd asked if he meant east-west traffic or the possibility of using
Alma Street for fly tracks.
Mr. Metzger meant less traffic. Another concern was potential or planned
projects for the area. He would work with Staff regarding projects in order
to provide a better study.
Mr. Hackmann indicated Staff would provide that information.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Burt
to continue Agenda Item Number 5 to a date uncertain and to have Richard
Hackmann, Management Specialist, continue to work with Hatch Mott
MacDonald to revise their proposal as a feasibility study.
Council Member Burt felt the Committee could have a more informed
conversation at the next meeting.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Kniss Absent
CITY COUNCIL RAIL COMMITTEE
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 1 of 6
Special Meeting
Thursday, May 23, 2013
6. Continued Discussion of the Preliminary Cost Estimates for Grade
Separation and Trenching Status.
Richard Hackmann, Management Specialist reported that the City Council
Rail Committee (Committee) directed Staff to revise the scope of the
proposed grade separation analysis for two scenarios and to reduce the cost
of services by $127,000. Staff was confident that the reduced scope
provided accurate orders of magnitude and information, and that it began a
community dialog concerning the City's vision for grade separations.
Staff met with Hatch Mott MacDonald and requested a determination of
whether funds could be saved through phasing of work. Hatch Mott
MacDonald proposed performing a Phase I analysis for approximately
$60,000 and a Phase II analysis for approximately $67,000. The Phase I
analysis provided information regarding alternative evaluation and draft
concepts to identify potential project impacts and draft concept level cost
estimates for alternative comparison purposes. In a Phase II analysis, Hatch
Mott MacDonald developed selected alternatives to a final concept level,
provided a final order of magnitude project costs for evaluation, and
provided a final feasibility study report. The most important piece of
information obtained through this analysis was a clear understanding of the
differences in cost and construction between a trench and grade separations.
Council Member Klein noted the proposal was to develop grade separation
alternatives between vehicular traffic and a fully electrified Caltrain service
at four locations within Palo Alto. The proposal did not mention depressing
the Caltrain Corridor into a trench.
Chris Metzger, Hatch Mott MacDonald indicated the intent was to review the
two major alternatives and to refine those as needed.
Michael Canepa, Hatch Mott MacDonald added that the proposal contained
language regarding a trench alternative.
Council Member Kniss inquired whether "under the existing crossing
roadway" was language for a trench option.
Mr. Metzger responded yes.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 2 of 6
Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting
Excerpt Minutes: 5/23/2013
Council Member Klein understood the proposal to indicate that the railway
would be trenched for only part of the distance through Palo Alto.
Mr. Metzger explained that the language was included to allow the study to
refine issues when impacts could be reduced through moving one system up
and the other down. The initial effort was to review the long trench and
grade separations for the roadway.
Council Member Klein recalled Hatch Matt MacDonald's 2011 report provided
great detail regarding the cost of a trench, and asked how the 2011 study
was different from the current study.
Mr. Metzger reported the 2011 study analyzed the cost of constructing the
trench alone. The current study reviewed the cost of the trench project and
any ancillary impacts from the project.
Mr. Hackmann noted the 2011 report was a cost per foot construction
estimate and did not include other costs associated with construction. The
current study reviewed ancillary impacts, such as property acquisition and
utility relocation.
Council Member Klein stated the cost of constructing a trench was
approximately $130 million per mile and any additional work only increased
that cost. The minimum cost of constructing a trench was approximately
$500 million.
Mr. Metzger agreed that ancillary costs would increase the overall trench
costs, but ancillary costs would also add context to the analysis when
comparing the benefits and costs of the options.
Council Member Burt inquired whether the 2011 study considered four-track
or two-track.
Council Member Klein answered two-track.
Council Member Burt asked if Hatch Mott MacDonald would consider elevated
roadways in the analysis.
Mr. Metzger wanted to start with the two ideas, and then look for
opportunities for hybrid alternatives.
Council Member Burt understood hybrid to mean partially submerging or
partially elevating the railway. The Staff Report and the proposal only
mentioned submerging roadways that crossed the railway. There was no
mention of elevating the roadways.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 3 of 6
Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting
Excerpt Minutes: 5/23/2013
Mr. Metzger explained that the impact of taking roadways under the railway
was less than the impact of elevating roadways over the railway. Elevating
the roadways required more clearance.
Council Member Burt inquired whether Mr. Metzger could positively state
that elevating the roadway over the railway would have greater impacts in
comparison with submerging the roadway under the railway.
Mr. Metzger agreed at the current time.
Council Member Burt asked if Hatch Mott MacDonald could compare
submerging and elevating roadways from a cost standpoint.
Mr. Metzger added that Hatch Mott MacDonald could make that comparison
as part of the study.
Chair Shepherd inquired whether that comparison was to be part of the
Phase I study.
Mr. Metzger felt a Phase I study should include some statements about the
comparison. A Phase I study considered the relationships of the
alternatives; whereas, a Phase II study considered the details of each
alternative.
Mr. Hackmann explained that the Staff Report focused on submerging
roadways because of the reduced environmental footprint and the visual
impact.
Council Member Burt stated that the Phase II Capacity Analysis could
determine that grade separations were not necessary if the number of trains
did not exceed six trains per peak hour. Under the blended system
agreement, Caltrain was not able to provide more than six trains per hour
during the peak hour until High Speed Rail (HSR) was implemented in 2029.
If Caltrain was electrified, then the City could choose to assume that
ridership would be greater and that Caltrain would renegotiate the
agreement for more than six trains per peak hour. At which time, he
predicted that grade separations would become an issue for Caltrain and
Palo Alto.
Chair Shepherd clarified that it was six trains per hour one way.
Council Member Burt felt that the urgency to proceed would be influenced by
the Capacity Analysis and by whether the blended system agreement should
be the basis for future planning.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 4 of 6
Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting
Excerpt Minutes: 5/23/2013
Council Member Kniss believed the cost for trenching and ancillary impacts
would double the estimated cost to $500 million, and inquired whether the
Committee had discussed potential sources for those funds.
Chair Shepherd indicated that the Committee had not discussed funding
sources.
Council Member Kniss mentioned that Council Member Burt's concerns were
projections that looked far into the future, but said the information was
valuable. She asked if the 2011 study provided the basic cost of a trench
option.
Mr. Metzger reported the 2011 study was the first step for a trench option.
Council Member Kniss was interested in a Phased approach.
Chair Shepherd wanted to discuss the timing of the study and liked the
Phased concept. The full Council needed to discuss a vision for the Rail
Corridor because there were differences in how cities within San Mateo and
Santa Clara Counties worked regarding the Rail Corridor.
Council Member Klein wanted to refocus the discussion on the Agenda Item.
Chair Shepherd reiterated that the proposal should be presented to the
Council so the discussion of grade separations could be had.
Council Member Burt agreed that the study proposal should be presented to
the Council for a decision; however, the timing of the study needed to be
informed by the Caltrain Capacity Analysis. The Committee needed to
continue with a recommendation to the Council regarding the study to the
June meeting.
Mr. Hackmann noted the Committee was scheduled to meet on June 27,
2013.
Council Member Burt recommended that the Committee discuss the Capacity
Analysis prior to making a recommendation to the Council regarding the
study.
Chair Shepherd did not believe the study should be presented to the Council
prior to the Break.
Council Member Burt advised that the Committee not make assumptions
regarding possible scenarios, costs, and funding sources.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 5 of 6
Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting
Excerpt Minutes: 5/23/2013
Council Member Kniss presumed that the $130 million amount Council
Member Klein referenced earlier was an actual figure.
Council Member Burt explained that the $130 million figure included the Rail
Corridor and said the figure assumed the inclusion that the Rail Corridor
would be submerged the entire length of the City.
Council Member Kniss supposed that the $130 million amount had merit.
Council Member Burt indicated that the assumptions were a reasonable
starting point if they proved to be valid. Other cost estimates were
available; however, they all assumed and included different variables.
Council Member Kniss stated the Committee could not proceed without
making some assumptions.
Chair Shepherd noted the proposal indicated Hatch Mott MacDonald would
assume no changes to Embarcadero Road or Oregon Expressway. She was
interested in having a good presentation for the Council to begin a
community dialog regarding grade separations.
Council Member Burt reported Council Member Kniss' assumptions were not
accurate as stated in the proposal. The report excluded consideration of
recessed tracks at Embarcadero Road and Oregon Expressway; therefore,
the railway was not trenched the entire length of the City; the Committee
did not have enough information to make assumptions.
Council Member Klein only wanted to quote from reports. The study needed
to be presented to the Council for funding to be authorized. He did not
believe the study was needed because the 2011 study provided the basis for
cost estimates.
Council Member Kniss felt the cost estimate for trenching was reasonably
accurate and thought the study should not proceed until the Committee
received additional information.
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss
to continue the discussion of Agenda Item Number 6 “Continued Discussion
of the Preliminary Cost Estimates for Grade Separation and Trenching
Status” (continued from April 25) to the next Rail Committee meeting on
June 27, 2013.
Council Member Burt felt the most promising alternative would likely be a
hybrid of the two alternatives. A below-grade alternative was the official
position of the City, and to eliminate that option without changing City policy
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 6 of 6
Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting
Excerpt Minutes: 5/23/2013
was wrong. If the Committee concluded that a below-grade option was not
feasible for economic reasons, then a discussion was needed to change the
Guiding Principles.
Chair Shepherd believed the work of the Committee was to determine a
method to discuss grade separations. Grant dollars for trenching were
possible, but the Council needed a clear understanding of trenching in order
to complete grant applications. She supported the Motion, but wanted to
present information to the Council regarding grade separations in the near
future.
Council Member Burt requested a rough estimate of costs for submerged
grade separations.
Mr. Metzger stated that the cost to submerge one roadway at one location
could be $50-$150 million.
Council Member Burt asked if that range included difficulties with Alma
Street.
Mr. Metzger replied yes. Hatch Mott MacDonald did not plan on redoing the
2011 study, but wanted to build on it.
Council Member Klein stated his point was that Hatch Mott MacDonald
provided sufficient information in 2011.
Mr. Metzger said he could add context for use of the estimates in the 2011
study.
Council Member Kniss suggested Hatch Mott MacDonald provide anecdotal
information regarding other cities' costs for grade separations.
Mr. Metzger was able to summarize the different grade separations that
occurred over the last 20 years along the Corridor.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
CITY COUNCIL RAIL COMMITTEE
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 1 of 4
Special Meeting
Thursday, August 22, 2013
7. Recommendation on the Preliminary Cost Estimates for Grade
Separation and Trenching Studies
Chair Shepherd noted the City Council Rail Committee (Committee)
requested Staff return with this information once Caltrain performed its
initial Crossing and Traffic Study analysis.
Richard Hackmann, Management Specialist, reported Hatch Mott
MacDonald's last proposal included a phasing option for studying grade
separation alternatives in Palo Alto. Results from the Caltrain Gate Crossing
and Traffic Analysis Study were as expected. In the Staff Report, Staff
added specific scenarios for trenching and grade separations for discussion
purposes only.
Council Member Kniss indicated the City of San Mateo did not provide the
majority of funding for improvements.
Aaron Aknin, Acting Planning and Community Environment Director, stated
that was correct for San Bruno as well.
Council Member Kniss inquired whether Staff identified possible funding
sources for grade separations.
Chair Shepherd noted San Mateo County had a sales tax which generated
approximately $200 million.
Council Member Burt appreciated the lack of funding for an option could
influence the decision to study it. If funding was available in the future, the
Committee might be more open to an evaluation of all options.
Council Member Kniss concurred.
Council Member Burt suggested the community, Santa Clara County, and
cities in Santa Clara County could be willing to approve funding mechanisms.
If grade separations were necessary to achieve system improvements, there
might be State and Federal funding sources.
Council Member Kniss recalled the challenges in San Mateo County.
MINUTES
Page 2 of 4
Rail Committee Special Meeting
Final Minutes: 8/22/13
Mr. Hackmann recalled the purpose of the study was to provide information
to the community regarding preferred grade separations. The study was not
intended to determine a configuration.
Chair Shepherd felt the study would allow the community to move toward
certainty and feasibility regarding grade separation possibilities.
Herb Borock did not believe the Committee should proceed with the study.
Trenching was too expensive with the sources of revenue available. Hiring
Hatch Mott MacDonald, who was a financial supporter of Proposition 1A,
would look bad to the community.
Roland Lebrun reported funding was available. The real issue was where the
money was spent. He questioned whether Samtrans should be running
Caltrain operations on behalf of the three counties.
Council Member Klein inquired about the scenario of trenching the corridor
from Embarcadero Road to approximately San Antonio Road when the
Committee discussed trenching the railway from border to border.
Mr. Hackmann explained the proposal considered trenching from south of
the Caltrain Station because of the complexities of tunneling under San
Francisquito Creek.
Council Member Klein indicated that was inconsistent with the Guiding
Principle for all sections of the community to receive the same treatment.
Mr. Hackmann felt trenching from border to border made the study too
complex.
Council Member Klein would not support proceeding with the study and felt
Palo Alto should not provide funding. While some members of the
community would like to know how much trenching would cost, Hatch Mott
MacDonald provided an earlier report indicating the cost of trenching. The
court's decision provided another layer of uncertainty as to whether High
Speed Rail (HSR) would occur.
Council Member Burt believed Council Member Klein's comments referenced
the prior report of Hatch Mott MacDonald under a four-track system.
Council Member Klein reported the prior report covered both the two-track
and four-track system.
Council Member Burt stated the prior report did not provide the information
under consideration and it did not contemplate feasibility of options. From
the alternatives analysis, the feasibility and cost of trenching in the East
MINUTES
Page 3 of 4
Rail Committee Special Meeting
Final Minutes: 8/22/13
Meadow and Charleston areas was more feasible and less costly than in
north Palo Alto. He wanted to know the feasibility of trenching south of
Oregon Expressway. The cost of trenching from Oregon Expressway to San
Antonio Road could be equivalent to recessing the roadway; when
considering the cost and political impact of land taking. Cities on the
Peninsula with grade separations went through a long process of evaluation.
The study would inform the Council of alternatives, technical barriers,
opportunities and relative costs. With increasing demand for Caltrain, it was
likely eight or ten trains per hour could be needed. With Caltrain
electrification those demands would not occur as soon as projected.
Chair Shepherd noted the Staff Report suggested two phases of work.
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss
to recommend to Council the authorization of Hatch Mott MacDonald to
proceed with Phase One:
1. Alternative evaluation and draft concept exhibits to identify
potential project impacts to roadways, right of way, traffic, and
the railway corridor
2. Draft concept level cost estimates for alternative comparison
purposes
3. Attend a City Council Rail Committee meeting, and to request
that Staff return with a more refined set of alternatives for Hatch
Mott MacDonald to review regarding different trenching scenarios
in the community.
Council Member Kniss felt the study would provide a general sense of how to
proceed. Other communities took ten years to prepare for grade separation
and the City needed to get started.
Chair Shepherd believed the study would provide a sound method for
incrementally alleviating the community's anxiety. She wanted to have a
broad dialog with the community.
Mr. Hackmann requested direction regarding the refined scenarios for study.
Hatch Mott MacDonald agreed to study a trenching scenario and a grade
separation scenario. He could utilize a scenario for each alternative based
on the Committee's input or elaborate on a menu of scenarios divided by
trench or grade separation.
Council Member Burt suggested Hatch Mott MacDonald recommend the most
feasible and cost effective trenching scenario in addition to the scenarios
MINUTES
Page 4 of 4
Rail Committee Special Meeting
Final Minutes: 8/22/13
listed in the Staff Report. He requested Hatch Mott MacDonald consider
alternatives where grade separations were problematic.
Council Member Kniss agreed with Council Member Burt's suggestion.
Chair Shepherd recommended the scenarios align as closely as possible with
the Rail Corridor Study. She asked Staff to determine if the visions of the
Rail Corridor Study were feasible.
Council Member Burt inquired whether Staff should return to the Committee
prior to presenting the recommendation to the Council as there was no
urgency.
Council Member Kniss did not have a preference.
Chair Shepherd wanted the Council to begin the discussion.
Council Member Klein was interested in reviewing Staff's recommendation.
He felt there was no consistency in the Committee's comments.
Council Member Burt indicated clarity was the purpose of performing the
study. Additional information was needed to evolve toward a better vision.
Council Member Klein stated the Committee was not in agreement as to
what should be studied.
Council Member Burt felt that emphasized the need for a broader evaluation.
The Committee did not have enough information to begin to narrow the
long-term alternatives.
Chair Shepherd added that other Council Members had opinions as well and
they needed to be heard prior to committing to what should be evaluated.
Mr. Hackmann inquired whether Staff should present the recommendation
directly to the Council.
Chair Shepherd replied yes.
MOTION PASSED: 3-1, Klein no